ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. Criminal Petition No.4933 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.8 and Criminal Petition No.5573 of 2020 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.5, 7 and 9 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.184 of 2020 of Miryalguda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 447 and 506 read with 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). 1.1. As both the criminal petitions arise out of Crime No.184 of 2020 of Miryalguda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, both petitions are clubbed together and being disposed of the same by way of a common order. 2. Brief facts of the case: The husband of respondent No.2, Mandula Saidulu, purchased land admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas in Survey No. 956, situated at Bangarugadda, in the year 1996, from one Nerella Pappaiah and the said Saidulu subsequently land was divided into plots and sold several plots through Nerella Pappaiah and his sons and retained one plot for construction of a house. In the year 2002, Saidulu passed away and thereafter Nerella Bhiksham, son of Pappaiah, registered an extent of 534 square yards in favour of the daughter of Saidulu, namely, Mandula Harika, under Document No. 2732 of 2007. The second respondent alleged that the petitioners, namely Boddu Swathi Bantu Swathi, Parshanaboina Laxman, Mohammed Sajid Khan, and Saraswathi Gayathri Devi, along with others, created false and fabricated documents and filed a civil suit in 2015 based on such documents. It was further alleged that during 2011 and 2012, Nerella Laxmi and Nerella Karuna, the daughter-in-laws of Nerella Pappaiah, amended revenue records (Sl. No. 110) in collusion with revenue officials. The complaint also alleged that in 2015, several illegal sale transactions were executed, Document No. 542/2015 in favour of Nethi Venkateshwarlu (Ac. 0.30 gts). Document No. 1256/2015 in favour of Boddu Swathi @ Bantu Swathi (Ac. 0.10 gts). Document No. 543/2015 in favour of Kareti Venkatasubba Reddy (Ac. 1.00 gts). Document No. 1257/2015 in favour of Mohammed Sajid Khan (Ac. 0.05 gts), and Document No. 1258/2015 in favour of Saraswathi Gayathri (Ac. 0.02 gts), for which Chilukuri Balakrishna, Vanam Ramakrishna, and Dheeravath. Taurya acted as witnesses. 0.10 gts). Document No. 543/2015 in favour of Kareti Venkatasubba Reddy (Ac. 1.00 gts). Document No. 1257/2015 in favour of Mohammed Sajid Khan (Ac. 0.05 gts), and Document No. 1258/2015 in favour of Saraswathi Gayathri (Ac. 0.02 gts), for which Chilukuri Balakrishna, Vanam Ramakrishna, and Dheeravath. Taurya acted as witnesses. The second respondent submitted a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, vide Letter No D/3814/2015 dated 29-12-2016, and in January 2017, the RDO replied that the land had been plotted since 1996, and that Nerella Laxmi and Nerella Karuna had no ownership rights. Despite this, on 17.09.2020, the alleged purchasers unlawfully entered the land and demanded money from the complainant to permit her entry. Consequently, the second respondent filed a complaint on 02.10.2020 seeking action against the accused. Basing on the above said complaint, Crime No.184 of 2020 is registered, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.5 and 7 to 9 and they filed the present criminal petitions seeking to quash the crime against them. 3. Heard Mr. C. Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4933 of 2020, Mr. Krishna Kalyan, learned counsel, representing Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5573 of 2020, Mr. Kiran Palakurthy, learned counsel, representing Ms.Srilatha Palakurthy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.4933 of 2020 and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State in both the criminal petitions. 4. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4933 of 2020: 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner/accused No.8 had purchased the property to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts. in Sy.No.956 of Miryalguda Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, through registered sale deed bearing No.543 of 2015 dated 24.01.2015 from Nerella Karuna by paying valuable sale consideration and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and his name was mutated in the revenue records and e-pattadar passbook was also issued in his favour. 4.2. He further submitted that when respondent No.2/de facto complainant and others were trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, he had filed a suit in O.S.No.32 of 2015 before the V Additional District Judge, Miryalguda, seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction. 4.2. He further submitted that when respondent No.2/de facto complainant and others were trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, he had filed a suit in O.S.No.32 of 2015 before the V Additional District Judge, Miryalguda, seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction. Along with the said suit, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.787 of 2015 seeking ad interim injunction and the learned District Judge was pleased to grant an ad interim injunction on 09.10.2015 and the said injunction order is still operating. In the said suit, though respondent No.2 was not made as a party defendant, but at the instance of Regatti Narayan Reddy, who is defendant No.13 in the said suit, she filed the present complaint with baseless and false allegations. 4.3. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has given the present complaint on 02.10.2020, wherein, it is alleged that the petitioner and others claiming rights over the property basing upon fabricated documents and filed civil cases and on 19.09.2020, accused No.1, the petitioner along with other accused entered into his land illegally and demanded amount. 4.4. He further submitted that the petitioner filed suit in O.S.No.32 of 2015 on 05.10.2015. When the said suit is pending, at the instance of Regatti Narayan Reddy to settle the disputes pending between him and the petitioner before the competent civil Court, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint suppressing several facts and the same is not permitted under law. 4.5. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner that he intimidated, harassed and trespassed into the land illegally and demanded money and the said allegations are levelled against accused No.1 only. Hence, the ingredients under Sections 447 , 420 and 506 of the IPC do not attract against the petitioner and the continuation of the proceedings is clear abuse of the process of law. 4.6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments. 1. R.Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana , (2023) 2 SCC 195 2. Usha Chakraborty and another v. State of West Bengal and another , (2023) 15 SCC 135 ; and 3. Urmila Devi v. Balram , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1574 5. Submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5573 of 2020: 5.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.5, 7 and 9 have not committed any offence. Usha Chakraborty and another v. State of West Bengal and another , (2023) 15 SCC 135 ; and 3. Urmila Devi v. Balram , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1574 5. Submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5573 of 2020: 5.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.5, 7 and 9 have not committed any offence. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of Sections 447 , 420 and 506 of the IPC. He further submitted that petitioner No.2/accused No.7 has purchased the property to an extent of Ac.0.30 gts. from Nerella Laxmi @ Laxmamma through registered sale deed bearing No.542 of 2015 dated 24.01.2015 and since then he has been in possession of the said property and he is the bona fide purchaser and petitioner No.3/accused No.9 is only a witness to the document executed by Nerella Laxmi @ Laxmamma. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 447 , 420 and 506 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioners. 5.2. He further submitted that petitioner No.2/accused No.7 has filed a suit in O.S.No.33 of 2015 before the VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalguda, seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 gts. in Sy.No.956 of Miryalguda village and the said suit was decreed on 17.10.2019. 5.3. He further submitted that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint dated 02.10.2020 against the petitioners and other accused including accused No.6, who died on 28.12.2018 i.e., much prior to lodging of the above said complaint. Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint only with an intention to harass the petitioners, and the same is not permitted under law and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 6.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners that they have intimidated, harassed and trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 illegally and demanded money and the ingredients of Sections 447 , 420 and 506 of the IPC are specifically attracted against the petitioners. Respondent No.2 mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner and others filed civil suits based on the fabricated documents. F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia and merely not mentioning the civil case particulars, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. Respondent No.2 mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner and others filed civil suits based on the fabricated documents. F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia and merely not mentioning the civil case particulars, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. Whether the petitioners trespassed into the land of respondent No.2, the truth will come out during the course of investigation. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. 7. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 7.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Analysis: 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that accused No.8 is claiming rights over the property to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts. based upon the registered sale deed bearing No.543 of 2015 dated 24.01.2015 said to have been executed by Nerella Karuna by paying valuable sale consideration and his name was mutated in the revenue records, pursuant to that the revenue authorities have issued e- passbook on 18.07.2024 in his favour. The record further reveals that accused No.8 filed a suit in O.S.No.32 of 2015 before the VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalguda, seeking a declaration of title and perpetual injunction, against respondent No.2 and others. In the said suit, learned District Judge granted ad interim injunction in I.A.No.787 of 2015 on 09.10.2015 restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the suit schedule property. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the aforesaid ad interim injunction order is subsisting as on today and the above said suit is pending and trial has commenced and accused No.8 filed his chief affidavit and Exs.A.1 to A.114 were marked. 9. On perusal of the complaint, it is revealed that respondent No.2 has not stated the pendency of the suit filed by accused No.8 i.e., O.S.No.32 of 2015 and also granting of ad interim injunction. Further, respondent No.2 has not made any specific allegations against the petitioners and their names were also not mentioned. 10. The only allegation levelled against accused No.8 is that based upon a false and fabricated document dated 24.01.2015, he is claiming rights over the property, and with respect to that, two civil suits, namely O.S.No.32 of 2015 and O.S.No.15 of 2023, seeking declaration of title based on the registered document No.24.01.2015, and the said suits are pending. 10. The only allegation levelled against accused No.8 is that based upon a false and fabricated document dated 24.01.2015, he is claiming rights over the property, and with respect to that, two civil suits, namely O.S.No.32 of 2015 and O.S.No.15 of 2023, seeking declaration of title based on the registered document No.24.01.2015, and the said suits are pending. Whether the registered sale deed dated 24.01.2015 is genuine or not, and whether accused No.8 is entitled to claim any rights over the property or not, have to be adjudicated and decided by the competent civil court in respect of the very same property. 11. With respect to the petitioners/accused Nos.5, 7 and 9 are concerned, there is no specific allegation levelled against them. Moreover, the suit filed by petitioner No.2/accused No.7 i.e., O.S.No.33 of 2015 before the VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalguda, seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 gts. in Sy.No.956 was decreed on 17.10.2019. The record further reveals that accused No.6 died on 28.12.2018 i.e., even prior to lodging of the complaint dated 02.10.2020. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in R.Nagender Yadav supra, held that while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court must act cautiously and sparingly, using it only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The Court observed that although certain civil disputes may appear to have a criminal flavour, the High Court must determine whether the complaint genuinely discloses the ingredients of a criminal offence or merely gives a civil dispute the colour of criminality. If the dispute is essentially civil in nature and civil remedies are already being pursued, the criminal proceedings should be quashed to prevent misuse of the court’s process. Applying this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed the criminal proceedings in Criminal Complaint No. 1029 of 2015. However, it clarified that if the civil court later finds the disputed sale deed to be forged, fresh criminal proceedings may be initiated. The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the genuineness of the sale deed, leaving that issue entirely for the civil court to decide on the basis of evidence and expert opinion. 13. However, it clarified that if the civil court later finds the disputed sale deed to be forged, fresh criminal proceedings may be initiated. The Court expressly refrained from commenting on the genuineness of the sale deed, leaving that issue entirely for the civil court to decide on the basis of evidence and expert opinion. 13. In Usha Chakraborty supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the respondent had suppressed the fact of a pending civil suit between him and the appellants, which directly related to the same dispute forming the basis of his criminal allegations. Such non-disclosure amounted to concealment of a material fact. The Court further held that before ordering registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the complaint must disclose specific and clear allegations satisfying the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. Vague or general accusations cannot justify a direction to investigate. On examining the complaint, the Court found that the allegations lacked the necessary elements to constitute the offences under Sections 323 , 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420, and 120-B IPC. There were no concrete assertions of causing hurt, criminal intimidation, dishonest inducement, or misappropriation. The dispute was essentially civil in nature, but the respondent had attempted to give it a criminal colour. Given that the civil suit on the same subject was already pending, the Court held that the respondent was misusing criminal proceedings as a tool of harassment against the appellants. Relying on Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand { (2013) 11 SCC 673 }, it concluded that the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal case to prevent abuse of process, as the respondent had already invoked civil remedies and concealed that fact. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Urmila Devi supra, referring to its earlier judgment in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre , reiterated that the criminal process should not be misused for any ulterior or oblique purpose. It observed that courts should quash criminal proceedings where the likelihood of conviction is minimal and where continuing prosecution would serve no meaningful purpose. After examining the facts and precedents, the Court found that none of the alleged offences were actually made out against the accused. The case was identified as one among many instances where a purely civil dispute was being presented as a criminal matter. After examining the facts and precedents, the Court found that none of the alleged offences were actually made out against the accused. The case was identified as one among many instances where a purely civil dispute was being presented as a criminal matter. The complaint had been pending for more than twenty years, and its continuation would only result in unnecessary hardship. Applying the principles laid down in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , particularly sub-paragraphs 1, 3, 5, and 7 of paragraph 102, the Court held that it was just and proper to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice. 15. It is already stated supra that O.S.No.32 of 2015 filed by accused No.8 and O.S.No.15 of 2023 filed by Regatti Narayana Reddy and others are pending before the competent Civil Courts, wherein the parties have sought comprehensive reliefs and the said suits are pending. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners that they illegally trespassed into the land and demanded money and even their names were not mentioned in the complaint dated 02.10.2020. 16. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned supra, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings for the offences under Sections 447 , 420 and 506 of the IPC against the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 7 to 9 is a clear abuse of process of the law and it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against them. 17. In the result, the criminal petitions are allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 7 to 9 in Crime No.184 of 2020 of Miryalguda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District, are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.